Statistical Tools Application for Literature Review: A Case on Maintenance Management Decision-Making in the Steel Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes some bibliometric results on the topics of decision-making technique named the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which had been often applied in numerous papers on the industrial management, particularly, in the steel production. Introduction and Section 2 tell us about bibliometric measurements, describe the Lotka’s, Zip’s, and Bradford’s laws, the AHP application to management and maintenance in the steel industry, application of the R software Bibliometrix package, and VOSviewer tool for mapping. Section 3 considers the databases Clarivate's Web of Science and Elsevier's Scopus for bibliometric analysis, Section 4 presents the obtained results, Section 5 gives a brief discussion, Section 6 Concludes, and References suggest 80 sources. The three first sections are smoothly written, however, there are multiple flaws in the rest part of the paper – some of them are as follows.

1. Section 3: Table 1 is almost empty and can be substituted by a couple of phrases in the plain text.
2. Section 4: the results’ presentation is overloaded with graphical illustrations easily produced by the modern software. Many of those graphs are redundant and have a little actual value for any explanation, so they mostly serve for cosmetic aims. Below are some details on the tables and figures.
3. Figure 2 is simply absent.
4. Figure 3 reproduces in bar charts the same data shown in Table 2, so this material should not be given twice.
5. A few additional numbers from Table 4 can be added into Table 3 bottom line, so Table 4 per se can be skipped.
6. Figure 4 is too general and out of the topic under consideration. It is also unreadable, so it can be skipped without any damage to the content.
7. Figure 5 is not interesting – its results are roughly proportional to the populations of the countries, so it can be skipped too.
8. Figure 6 is rather boring with its too evident sense.
9. Figures 7 and 8 reveal undistinguishable mess in networks, they do not explain anything, so there is no need to keep them.
10. The same concerns Figure 9 in p. 13 - it is unreadable and has no meaning, so can be dropped.
11. Table 5 is a basic simple description, maybe interesting in a journal on steel engineering, but it has no value for statistical journal.
12. Table 6 could be in its place in a journal on the Bibliometrics studies, but in the Stats journal it has no meaning.
13. The next figure in p. 14 is called again Figure 9 (the 2^nd Figure 9?), and it is ridiculous in any journal besides on bibliometrics, because it simply shows how many times several authors published their works.
14. The same concerns Figure 10, which also should be excluded.
15. Figures 11 and 12 are absent by unknown reason.
16. Figure 13 is a widely known type of the Word cloud, used mostly for entertainment.
17. Figure 14 is unreadable, so it should be made readable or skipped – anyway, these clusters are described in the text.
18. Figures 15 and 16 do not present any useful information, so can be skipped without any harm to the paper.

Resuming, in spite of probably some useful results, the whole work is presented in a very messy and eclectic way, so a reader can only guess what about the authors talk and what for.

Also, the paper is submitted to the Stats journal, but there is nothing about statistical methods, if not to count for some rudimentary percent calculations and colored charts.

It seems this work may find a better home in a journal on bibliometrics studies, or at least on management in the steel industry.

Still, if the authors want to see their work in a professional journal on statistics, the paper should be re-written in a much more precise way describing explicitly all the procedures and findings in the clear statistical language with valuable results.

 

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team for the Stats Journal,
Dear Reviewers,
We appreciate the feedback provided by the Reviewers. In response to their suggestions, we have
made several modifications. Below, we would like to respond to the Reviewers' comments and
clarify where the changes were made.
Reviewer 1:
The paper describes some bibliometric results on the topics of decision-making technique
named the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which had been often applied in numerous papers
on the industrial management, particularly, in the steel production. Introduction and Section 2
tell us about bibliometric measurements, describe the Lotka’s, Zip’s, and Bradford’s laws, the
AHP application to management and maintenance in the steel industry, application of the R
software Bibliometrix package, and VOSviewer tool for mapping. Section 3 considers the
databases Clarivate's Web of Science and Elsevier's Scopus for bibliometric analysis, Section 4
presents the obtained results, Section 5 gives a brief discussion, Section 6 Concludes, and
References suggest 80 sources. The three first sections are smoothly written, however, there are
multiple flaws in the rest part of the paper – some of them are as follows.
1. Section 3: Table 1 is almost empty and can be substituted by a couple of phrases in the
plain text.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. Table 1 was replaced by a couple of
phrases, as suggested.
2. Section 4: the results’ presentation is overloaded with graphical illustrations easily
produced by the modern software. Many of those graphs are redundant and have a little
actual value for any explanation, so they mostly serve for cosmetic aims. Below are
some details on the tables and figures.
Author's reply: We agree with the reviewer's insightful comment. We have reduced the
number of Tables and Figures as proposed.
3. Figure 2 is simply absent.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. The labels of all figures and tables have
been corrected.
4. Figure 3 reproduces in bar charts the same data shown in Table 2, so this material
should not be given twice.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. Figure 3 has been excluded.
5. A few additional numbers from Table 4 can be added into Table 3 bottom line, so Table
4 per se can be skipped.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Regarding this issue, the suggestion
could be implemented, but we decided to keep it as it is, since Table 3 is about
“publications” and Table 4 is about “citations.”
6. Figure 4 is too general and out of the topic under consideration. It is also unreadable, so
it can be skipped without any damage to the content.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 4 has been arranged. In our
opinion, this Figure provides a structured and insightful overview of the research
landscape.
7. Figure 5 is not interesting – its results are roughly proportional to the populations of the
countries, so it can be skipped too.
Author reply: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, but we decided to keep this
chart, once the distribution of authors provides critical insights into the global research
landscape and highlights potential biases or disparities in knowledge production. We
agree that the first four are the countries with the largest population, but the other are
not related to this point. However, we change the chart type to the top ten distribution of
authors by country.
8. Figure 6 is rather boring with its too evident sense
Author reply: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. This Figure shows that most
articles have been published recently, indicating an upward trend over the years. We
change the chart type to lines.
9. Figures 7 and 8 reveal undistinguishable mess in networks, they do not explain
anything, so there is no need to keep them.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 7 & 8 have been excluded.
10. The same concerns Figure 9 in p. 13 - it is unreadable and has no meaning, so can be
dropped.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 9 has been excluded.
11. Table 5 is a basic simple description, maybe interesting in a journal on steel
engineering, but it has no value for statistical journal.
Author's reply: This research aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis employing
statistical tools to measure researchers' scientific contributions. This Table identifies a
leading source, which is an important part of a bibliometric review, and the R
Bibliometrix package is an excellent tool for this. Leading sources are the journals,
conferences, or other publication venues that publish the most influential and relevant
research in a specific field.
12. Table 6 could be in its place in a journal on the Bibliometrics studies, but in the Stats
journal it has no meaning.
Author's reply: Table 6 refers to the number of authors per document, which is a critical
metric in bibliometric analysis and R's Bibliometrix package. Analyzing this data
provides significant insights into research trends, collaboration patterns, and the
evolution of a field.
13. The next figure in p. 14 is called again Figure 9 (the 2nd Figure 9?), and it is ridiculous
in any journal besides on bibliometrics, because it simply shows how many times
several authors published their works.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. The labels of all figures and tables have
been corrected. This Figure has been excluded.
14. The same concerns Figure 10, which also should be excluded.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 10 has been excluded.
15. Figures 11 and 12 are absent by unknown reason.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. The labels of all figures and tables have
been corrected.
16. Figure 13 is a widely known type of the Word cloud, used mostly for entertainment.
Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. A word cloud can be a useful
tool, as its importance lies in its ability to provide a quick, visual overview of the most
frequently used terms and concepts within the body of literature being reviewed.
17. Figure 14 is unreadable, so it should be made readable or skipped – anyway, these
clusters are described in the text.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. We made this Figure more readable.
18. Figures 15 and 16 do not present any useful information, so can be skipped without any
harm to the paper.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 15 has been excluded. However,
Figure 16 is a very important chart, once it's not just a simple visualization; it's a
powerful analytical method that provides a quantitative and visual summary of the
conceptual structure of a research field.
Resuming, in spite of probably some useful results, the whole work is presented in a very messy
and eclectic way, so a reader can only guess what about the authors talk and what for.
Also, the paper is submitted to the Stats journal, but there is nothing about statistical methods, if
not to count for some rudimentary percent calculations and colored charts.
It seems this work may find a better home in a journal on bibliometrics studies, or at least on
management in the steel industry.
Still, if the authors want to see their work in a professional journal on statistics, the paper should
be re-written in a much more precise way describing explicitly all the procedures and findings
in the clear statistical language with valuable results.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the present article once again. I believe the manuscript has undergone significant improvements, addressing several previously mentioned critical points. Below, I present some observations aimed at further enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

• First, considering that the authors chose to restrict the core analysis to data exclusively from the Scopus database, it is recommended that Figure 1 be revised to display only this database. The simultaneous mention of both Scopus and Web of Science might lead readers to interpret that both were fully utilized in the main analysis, which is not the case, as Web of Science was used only for an initial overview.

• Another relevant point concerns the quality of Figure 4, which currently suffers from insufficient resolution, making it difficult to read and understand the presented data. It is recommended that the authors review this figure to ensure its visual clarity, guaranteeing that the information is accessible to readers.

• Regarding the article selection methodology, the phrase stating that "Some documents do not align with the objectives of this study, since several papers referred to AHP but not maintenance, and vice versa" raises questions about the structuring of the search strings and the use of logical operators. This aspect casts doubt on whether the search criteria are adequately aligned with the study's objectives, especially considering the inclusion of articles appearing to be out of scope. A thorough review of the search terms and logical operators used is suggested to ensure alignment and consistency in the bibliographic sample.

• The authors mention the exclusion of articles with self-citations; however, the reviewed document still includes the same five works listed in the references. A detailed reassessment is recommended regarding the necessity and justification for these self-citations to avoid any perception of bias, maintaining focus on widely recognized and pertinent studies.

• The absence of supplementary material containing raw data, scripts, or codes used (such as .csv files or R scripts used with Bibliometrix) limits the reproducibility of the analysis. It is recommended that the authors consider including these materials as supplements, promoting greater transparency and enabling replication by interested readers and researchers.

• It was mentioned that descriptions of the scripts and functionalities used in VOSviewer and Bibliometrix would be presented in the text; however, this information was not found. It would be important to explicitly detail which functionalities, procedures, or codes were employed to enhance methodological transparency.

• It is further suggested that the authors, if possible, explore comparisons with previous bibliometric reviews or incorporate benchmarking with other relevant databases, even briefly, to position their study within the broader scientific literature context.

• Finally, it is recommended to emphasize more strongly the potential for future quantitative investigations in subtopics identified in the analysis, especially those classified as “emerging” or “basic,” highlighting opportunities for scientific development.

In conclusion, the article represents a relevant contribution to understanding the research dynamics on AHP applied to maintenance management in the steel industry, using advanced bibliometric methods. Implementing the above suggestions could strengthen the methodological clarity, data accuracy, and reproducibility of the research, thereby elevating the quality and impact of the work for the scientific community.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team for the Stats Journal,
Dear Reviewers,
We appreciate the feedback provided by the Reviewers. In response to their suggestions, we have
made several modifications. Below, we would like to respond to the Reviewers' comments and
clarify where the changes were made.

Reviewer 2:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I appreciate the opportunity to review the present article once again. I believe the manuscript
has undergone significant improvements, addressing several previously mentioned critical
points. Below, I present some observations aimed at further enhancing the quality of the
manuscript.
1. First, considering that the authors chose to restrict the core analysis to data exclusively
from the Scopus database, it is recommended that Figure 1 be revised to display only
this database. The simultaneous mention of both Scopus and Web of Science might lead
readers to interpret that both were fully utilized in the main analysis, which is not the
case, as Web of Science was used only for an initial overview.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. Figure 1 has been formulated to guide
the research process and ensure a clear focus for the study.
2. Another relevant point concerns the quality of Figure 4, which currently suffers from
insufficient resolution, making it difficult to read and understand the presented data. It is
recommended that the authors review this figure to ensure its visual clarity,
guaranteeing that the information is accessible to readers.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Figure 4 has been arranged.
3. Regarding the article selection methodology, the phrase stating that "Some documents
do not align with the objectives of this study, since several papers referred to AHP but
not maintenance, and vice versa" raises questions about the structuring of the search
strings and the use of logical operators. This aspect casts doubt on whether the search
criteria are adequately aligned with the study's objectives, especially considering the
inclusion of articles appearing to be out of scope. A thorough review of the search terms
and logical operators used is suggested to ensure alignment and consistency in the
bibliographic sample.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. We only wanted to note that there are
documents that only address AHP that fall beyond the scope of this
study. To guarantee the consistency and alignment of the bibliographic sample, search
terms and logical operators have been used in the correct way. However, to avoid
controversy, we decided to remove the aforementioned sentence.
4. The authors mention the exclusion of articles with self-citations; however, the reviewed
document still includes the same five works listed in the references. A detailed
reassessment is recommended regarding the necessity and justification for these selfcitations
to avoid any perception of bias, maintaining focus on widely recognized and
pertinent studies.
Author's reply: We appreciate this feedback. We have reviewed the five works and
decided to exclude three, replacing their citations with those from other authors.
5. The absence of supplementary material containing raw data, scripts, or codes used (such
as .csv files or R scripts used with Bibliometrix) limits the reproducibility of the
analysis. It is recommended that the authors consider including these materials as
supplements, promoting greater transparency and enabling replication by interested
readers and researchers.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. The dataset files will be available in
authors' institutional repository with a permanent identifier at handle.net
6. It was mentioned that descriptions of the scripts and functionalities used in VOSviewer
and Bibliometrix would be presented in the text; however, this information was not
found. It would be important to explicitly detail which functionalities, procedures, or
codes were employed to enhance methodological transparency.
Author's reply: The Biblioshiny is a graphical user interface for the Bibliometrix R
package. This tool allows for performing all Bibliometrix package analyses without the
need to write or execute scripts in R. The VOSviewer is a desktop software. Its interface
is completely graphical and intuitive. You perform all steps of the analysis, such as
importing data, configuring visualizations, and exploring networks, using menus and
mouse clicks, without having to write a single line of code.
7. It is further suggested that the authors, if possible, explore comparisons with previous
bibliometric reviews or incorporate benchmarking with other relevant databases, even
briefly, to position their study within the broader scientific literature context.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We explore comparisons with previous
bibliometric reviews, aiming to address this issue.
8. Finally, it is recommended to emphasize more strongly the potential for future
quantitative investigations in subtopics identified in the analysis, especially those
classified as “emerging” or “basic,” highlighting opportunities for scientific
development.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. A new section has been prepared to
highlight this suggestion.
In conclusion, the article represents a relevant contribution to understanding the research
dynamics on AHP applied to maintenance management in the steel industry, using advanced
bibliometric methods. Implementing the above suggestions could strengthen the methodological
clarity, data accuracy, and reproducibility of the research, thereby elevating the quality and
impact of the work for the scientific community.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript maps research on industrial management decision-making and uses “AHP” in maintenance (steel sector)” as a focal example, employing Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The topic is relevant and the tooling is appropriate. To enhance clarity and credibility without extensive re-work, the manuscript would benefit from sharper scope alignment, text-level transparency on data collection, consistent database framing, clearer inclusion logic, and calibrated claims about bibliometric regularities.

 

1. The manuscript shifts between a broad map of industrial management decision making and a narrow case on AHP in steel maintenance. This blurs the main question and weakens the message. The paper needs one clear focus that is kept from start to finish.
2. The data collection and screening steps are not transparent. Exact search strings, the dates of retrieval and export, how duplicates were removed, and the counts at each stage are missing. Readers cannot check the dataset or repeat the workflow.
3. The handling of databases is inconsistent. Early parts compare Scopus and WoS, but the core analysis seems to rely on only one source. This creates mixed denominators and possible bias. The paper should commit to one basis for analysis.
4. The inclusion criteria are not tight enough. Several highly cited records do not clearly relate to AHP, maintenance, and steel together. This weakens claims that aim to inform maintenance in the steel industry.
5. The claims about bibliometric laws and the network maps sound stronger than the evidence shown. Parameters, fit checks, and clear explanations in the figures are missing. As written, the analysis risks overstatement.
6. Correct typographical issues, such as “Data Analysis” should be corrected to “Data Analisys”; ensure consistent tense, acronym definitions on first use, and uniform table/figure captioning. The author should ensure greater precision in such technical descriptions.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team for the Stats Journal,
Dear Reviewers,
We appreciate the feedback provided by the Reviewers. In response to their suggestions, we have
made several modifications. Below, we would like to respond to the Reviewers' comments and
clarify where the changes were made.

Reviewer 3 (1):
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript presents a timely bibliometric analysis of AHP applications in steel industry
maintenance management. The study leverages robust methodologies (VOSviewer and
Bibliometrix-R) to map research trends, validate bibliometric laws, and identify knowledge
gaps. While the work demonstrates methodological rigor and relevant findings, it requires
structural refinements, deeper analytical insights, and clearer articulation of its scholarly
contribution. The research holds significant value for both academia and industry practitioners
in strategic maintenance planning. Some suggestions are listed below:
1. The Introduction and Abstract lack a clear "research gap" statement.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. We have added as suggested.
2. Methodology ambiguity in search strategy (Section 3.2).
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. In order to address this question, we
provide context for the tools and procedures utilized in this research, aiming to enhance
methodological understanding and its impact on the scientific community.
3. Superficial interpretation of bibliometric law validation (Section 4.2).
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. We add more details concerning this
issue.
4. Tables/Figures disconnected from narrative (e.g., Table 3 data unused).
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. All the Figures and Tables have been
formulated to guide the research process and ensure a clear focus for the study.
5. Discussion fails to link findings to steel industry challenges.
Author's reply: We appreciate this feedback. A new section has been prepared to
highlight this suggestion.
6. Inconsistent terminology (e.g., alternating "AHP"/"Analytic Hierarchy Process").
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Inconsistent terminology has been
corrected.
Reviewer 3 (2):
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript maps research on industrial management decision-making and uses “AHP” in
maintenance (steel sector)” as a focal example, employing Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The
topic is relevant and the tooling is appropriate. To enhance clarity and credibility without
extensive re-work, the manuscript would benefit from sharper scope alignment, text-level
transparency on data collection, consistent database framing, clearer inclusion logic, and
calibrated claims about bibliometric regularities.
1. The manuscript shifts between a broad map of industrial management decision making
and a narrow case on AHP in steel maintenance. This blurs the main question and
weakens the message. The paper needs one clear focus that is kept from start to finish.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. We correct the manuscript concerning
this issue.
2. The data collection and screening steps are not transparent. Exact search strings, the
dates of retrieval and export, how duplicates were removed, and the counts at each stage
are missing. Readers cannot check the dataset or repeat the workflow.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. We include the search strings with all
data, as mentioned above.
3. The handling of databases is inconsistent. Early parts compare Scopus and WoS, but the
core analysis seems to rely on only one source. This creates mixed denominators and
possible bias. The paper should commit to one basis for analysis.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Figure 1 has been formulated to guide
the research process and ensure a clear focus for the study, where the WoS has been
removed. And the old Figure 3. "Total number of publications in the last ten years" has
also been removed.
4. The inclusion criteria are not tight enough. Several highly cited records do not clearly
relate to AHP, maintenance, and steel together. This weakens claims that aim to inform
maintenance in the steel industry.
Author's reply: When defining inclusion criteria for research using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in relation to maintenance in the steel industry, the
use of Boolean operators is essential to refine database searches. In this context, we use
the inclusion criteria associated with the Boolean operators, AHP AND, Analytic
Hierarchy Process, maintenance, Steel industry OR Steel Plant.
5. The claims about bibliometric laws and the network maps sound stronger than the
evidence shown. Parameters, fit checks, and clear explanations in the figures are
missing. As written, the analysis risks overstatement.
Author's reply: We appreciate this feedback. All the Figures and Tables have been
formulated to guide the research process and ensure a clear focus for the study. Some
Figures and tables have been excluded, according to Revisor 1.
6. Correct typographical issues, such as “Data Analysis” should be corrected to “Data
Analisys”; ensure consistent tense, acronym definitions on first use, and uniform
table/figure captioning. The author should ensure greater precision in such technical
descriptions.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Inconsistent typographical errors have
been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the work has been improved in revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The work has been improved in revision.

Author reply: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions. Thank you for all your comments, which have enabled us to improve our manuscript. We also appreciate your consideration of our manuscript for publication in Stats - An Open Access Journal from MDPI.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their responses. The document has incorporated most of the guidance and suggestions mentioned. I would, however, like to reinforce two points that I consider important for improving the transparency and reproducibility of the study:

Supplementary Material (Item 5): It is essential to provide the exact link to the dataset, rather than only mentioning the database in which the authors intend to make it available. This will ensure greater clarity and facilitate direct access for readers interested in replicating or further exploring the analyses.

Scripts and Functionalities Used (Item 6): Although no codes were directly employed, it is crucial that the authors specify which functionalities of each tool were used and what data processing was performed. I suggest detailing, for example:

• Which Biblioshiny functions were employed to generate the thematic map?

• In VOSviewer, how was the “Distribution of articles by research area” map generated?

• And for the figure “Topics associated with AHP for future research”?

• Was a synonym dictionary used?

I believe these minor suggestions will further strengthen the manuscript and can be readily addressed. After the inclusion of these items, I consider the document suitable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their responses. The document has incorporated most of the guidance and suggestions mentioned. I would, however, like to reinforce two points that I consider important for improving the transparency and reproducibility of the study:

1 - Supplementary Material (Item 5): It is essential to provide the exact link to the dataset, rather than only mentioning the database in which the authors intend to make it available. This will ensure greater clarity and facilitate direct access for readers interested in replicating or further exploring the analyses.

Author's reply: We agree with this observation. The dataset files are available in the authors' institutional repository with a permanent identifier at https://hdl.handle.net/11449/313301, as mentioned in the manuscript.

2 - Scripts and Functionalities Used (Item 6): Although no codes were directly employed, it is crucial that the authors specify which functionalities of each tool were used and what data processing was performed. I suggest detailing, for example:

• Which Biblioshiny functions were employed to generate the thematic map?
• In VOSviewer, how was the “Distribution of articles by research area” map generated?
• And for the figure “Topics associated with AHP for future research”?
• Was a synonym dictionary used?

Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Regarding this issue, we cite the references [74, 75, 77, 78] to address the reviewer's suggestion.

I believe these minor suggestions will further strengthen the manuscript and can be readily addressed. After the inclusion of these items, I consider the document suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The five-stage method description is repetitive and imprecise. “Five stages have been carried out” is immediately followed by “Five steps have been considered,” and Stage 5 says only “verifying the results obtained” without explaining what verification means or which checks were performed. Clarify each stage once, remove duplication, and define “verification” in operational terms.
2. Data Analisys is misspelled and Figure 6 is titled as a distribution by research area although the text describes a keyword co-occurrence network produced by VOSviewer. Ensure captions match the actual content and add minimal legends so readers can read figures without the main text.
3. The statement about “steel making” being a basic theme near the motor quadrant appears twice, once in Results and again in Discussion. Consolidate to a single, well-argued placement.
4. Reference formatting is inconsistent and contains errors，please standardize DOIs, journal capitalization, author initials, and punctuation.
5. “Steelmaking” and “steel making” are both used, and names of strategies and themes alternate between lowercase and title case. Choose one style and apply it consistently.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 - The five-stage method description is repetitive and imprecise. “Five stages have been carried out” is immediately followed by “Five steps have been considered,” and Stage 5 says only “verifying the results obtained” without explaining what verification means or which checks were performed. Clarify each stage once, remove duplication, and define “verification” in operational terms.

Author's reply: We agree with this observation. We removed the duplication, and we included more details concerning the fifth stage.

2 - Data Analisys is misspelled and Figure 6 is titled as a distribution by research area although the text describes a keyword co-occurrence network produced by VOSviewer. Ensure captions match the actual content and add minimal legends so readers can read figures without the main text.

Author's reply: We appreciate this feedback. We correct the sentence from Data Analisys to Data Analysis. The titles of Figures 2, 6, and 7 have been corrected.

3 - The statement about “steel making” being a basic theme near the motor quadrant appears twice, once in Results and again in Discussion. Consolidate to a single, well-argued placement.

Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. We removed the sentence that was duplicated in the "Discussion of results” section.

4 - Reference formatting is inconsistent and contains errors，please standardize DOIs, journal capitalization, author initials, and punctuation.

Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. Reference formatting errors have been corrected.

 

5 - “Steelmaking” and “steel making” are both used, and names of strategies and themes alternate between lowercase and title case. Choose one style and apply it consistently.

Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We correct the manuscript concerning this issue.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review the manuscript titled "Statistics tools application for literature review: A case on industrial management decision-making." The article addresses the application of bibliometric laws (Lotka, Zipf, and Bradford) and computational tools (VOSviewer and Bibliometrix) to analyze the use of the AHP method in maintenance management within the steel industry. The topic is relevant and aligned with contemporary demands for quantitative analysis of scientific output. However, the paper has several issues that affect its consistency and potential for publication. Below, I highlight some important points and suggestions:

 

1. Contextualization and Relevance of Content

• The theoretical review references classical works (e.g., the development of AHP by Saaty) and articles from the past five years. However, it lacks connection with recent advances in the field. For example, post-2020 applications of AHP in industrial sustainability are not mentioned, and discussions related to predictive maintenance (e.g., the use of machine learning) have been overlooked.
• The motivation for focusing on the steel industry is superficial and lacks empirical justification. There are no concrete data or arguments to support the study's relevance.

 

2. Clarity of Research Design, Scientific Rigor, and Reproducibility

• The central question (“How can statistical tools solve decision-making challenges in maintenance management?”) is too generic. There are no testable hypotheses or clear criteria for validating the conclusions. Furthermore, the text does not discuss how the findings contribute to addressing decision-making problems in this scientific field.
• The methodology is incomplete, confusing, and in parts incoherent. Below are some detailed concerns:
• The article selection step lacks details: inclusion/exclusion criteria, full search string, and screening process are not clearly presented. These are later mentioned in the results section, but in a very confusing manner. This needs to be clear, detailed, and delineated in the methodology. Although search strings are mentioned in section 4.1, it is not clear, for example, what logical connectors were used between the three groups of keywords.
• It is also not mentioned whether duplicate articles between the two databases were excluded from the initial analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3.
• The paper states that both Scopus and WoS databases were used, but later only Scopus articles were retained, without a consistent justification. This deviates from the described method. Ideally, the databases should have been merged to allow a unified analysis. The authors could have used tools within the Bibliometrix R package to integrate articles from different databases, generate conceptual maps, and even export visualizations to VOSviewer.
• Step 2 in Figure 1, labeled “Bibliometric Analysis,” appears to be more of a manuscript selection step.
• There is a lack of methodological transparency, and the methods section does not allow replication of the study. Critical details such as VOSviewer parameters (e.g., word co-occurrence thresholds) and Bibliometrix scripts are missing.
• There is no data availability statement. The dataset used in the analysis should be provided so that reviewers and readers can better understand and examine the study.
• Five of the 56 cited references are authored by the authors themselves, which is acceptable, but attention should be paid to avoid bias.

 

3. Argumentation and Discussion of Results

• There are two data collection phases, and within section 4.1, more than one search seems to have been performed. Which one was actually used? And why present two distinct data collections—does this bring substantial benefits?
• Image quality is poor, and many are distorted.
• The application of Lotka’s, Bradford’s, and Zipf’s laws is mentioned, but there is no deeper discussion of their implications or impact.
• The discussion on the impact of AHP in maintenance management is generic. There are no concrete examples showing how the bibliometric analysis identified trends or gaps applicable to the steel industry—i.e., there is no link to a practical case.
• The document limits itself to a descriptive analysis, simply explaining the generated figures and tables and how they relate to the cited laws. There is no in-depth discussion of the findings or how the paper advances knowledge in the field. Section 5 merely summarizes the descriptive results from section 4.
• I believe the paper lacks the correct techniques and could greatly expand its insight into the research field. However, this would require not only substantial rewriting but also significant intellectual effort to make a meaningful contribution that enhances our understanding of the target area. This is important not only to justify publication but also to give the authors the opportunity to maximize the impact of their work—to shape the future of the field rather than merely meet minimum requirements for publication.

 

6. Conclusions and Contributions

• The conclusions highlight “challenges and opportunities for future research” but fail to link these insights to specific results from the bibliometric analysis. Additionally, the article does not demonstrate how applying bibliometric laws brings new perspectives to AHP use in the steel industry beyond what is already known in the literature.

 

Editorial Decision

The article presents relevant theoretical foundations but lacks methodological rigor and especially depth in discussion. It merely describes diagrams without offering meaningful interpretation. In its current form, the article does not provide sufficient value to readers and does not justify publication.

I hope these comments help the authors improve the manuscript's contribution to the field. I wish them success in their research endeavors.

Author Response

1. Contextualization and Relevance of Content
1.1. The theoretical review references classical works (e.g., the development of AHP by Saaty) and articles from the past five years. However, it lacks connection with recent advances in the field. For example, post-2020 applications of AHP in industrial sustainability are not mentioned, and discussions related to predictive maintenance (e.g., the use of machine learning) have been overlooked.
Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Recent studies, such as those by Depczyński et al. (2023), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024) and Sayed et al. (2024), have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse. 

1.2. The motivation for focusing on the steel industry is superficial and lacks empirical justification. There are no concrete data or arguments to support the study's relevance.
Author's reply: We appreciate this feedback. According to Shanmugam, the steel industries are organizations, which generate 40 million jobs worldwide and play a vital role in a country's development. However, these enterprises have a high degree of technological complexity. In this context, it's necessary to foster a continuous improvement methodology in the processes and product development. In this context, the steel industry is a vital component of the global economy, supplying essential materials for nearly every sector, employing millions worldwide, and contributing trillions of dollars to the global GDP.

2. Clarity of Research Design, Scientific Rigor, and Reproducibility
2.1. The central question (“How can statistical tools solve decision-making challenges in maintenance management?”) is too generic. There are no testable hypotheses or clear criteria for validating the conclusions. Furthermore, the text does not discuss how the findings contribute to addressing decision-making problems in this scientific field.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. The central quaation has bean formulatad to guide the research process and ensura a clear facus for the study. Wa have also changed the conclusions, aiming to addreas this abservation.

2.2. The methodology is incomplete, confusing, and in parts incoherent. Below are some detailed concerns:
2.2.1. The article selection step lacks details: inclusion/exclusion criteria, full search string, and screening process are not clearly presented. These are later mentioned in the results section, but in a very confusing manner. This needs to be clear, detailed, and delineated in the methodology. Although search strings are mentioned in section 4.1, it is not clear, for example, what logical connectors were used between the three groups of keywords.
Author reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We review the manuscript to ensure that our methodology is clear, detailed, and well-defined, aiming to answer this question. We include the exclusion criteria, a complete search string, and the screening process.

2.2.2. It is also not mentioned whether duplicate articles between the two databases were excluded from the initial analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Author reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Duplicate articles between the Web of Science and Scopus databases were not excluded from the initial analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3, as this would provide a clearer overview of the data collected.

2.2.3. The paper states that both Scopus and WoS databases were used, but later only Scopus articles were retained, without a consistent justification. This deviates from the described method. Ideally, the databases should have been merged to allow a unified analysis. The authors could have used tools within the Bibliometrix R package to integrate articles from different databases, generate conceptual maps, and even export visualizations to VOSviewer.
Author reply: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. Scopus was chosen as the research database due to its extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature across various fields, including those relevant to the main focus of this research. Its advanced search and analysis features, such as author matching and the ability to track research output over time, simplify the process of finding relevant articles and analyzing research trends. Additionally, Scopus provides a user-friendly interface and a wide range of resources, including open-access articles.

2.2.4. Step 2 in Figure 1, labeled “Bibliometric Analysis,” appears to be more of a manuscript selection step.
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. The labeled has been changed.

2.3. There is a lack of methodological transparency, and the methods section does not allow replication of the study. Critical details such as VOSviewer parameters (e.g., word co-occurrence thresholds) and Bibliometrix scripts are missing.
Author's reply: We agree with the reviewer's insightful comment. We have incorporated critical details in VOSviewer and Bibliometrix scripts. This enhancement offers a deeper context, reinforces the academic rigor, and underscores the relevance of the manuscript.  

2.4. There is no data availability statement. The dataset used in the analysis should be provided so that reviewers and readers can better understand and examine the study.
Author's reply: This review collected data directly from Clarivate's Web of Science and Elsevier's Scopus.

2.5. Five of the 56 cited references are authored by the authors themselves, which is acceptable, but attention should be paid to avoid bias.
Author's reply: We agree with this observation. No more authored references have been cited.

3. Argumentation and Discussion of Results
3.1. There are two data collection phases, and within section 4.1, more than one search seems to have been performed. Which one was actually used? And why present two distinct data collections—does this bring substantial benefits?
Author's reply: Thank you for this observation. We differentiate between sections 4.1 and 4.2. In section 4.1, we analyzed the databases of Web of Science and Scopus, while in section 4.2, we conducted a data analysis specifically using the Scopus database. We deemed Scopus as the more prominent database, leading us to focus our study solely on it. In section 1, our discussion of data collection from both databases highlights the distinctions in research between the two, further clarifying the unique aspects of the Scopus database compared to the Web of Science.

3.2. Image quality is poor, and many are distorted.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. The images have been verified for accuracy and formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

3.3. The application of Lotka’s, Bradford’s, and Zipf’s laws is mentioned, but there is no deeper discussion of their implications or impact.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Section 2 has been reorganized to address this recommendation, and the advantages and limitations of these methods have been included. 

3.4. The discussion on the impact of AHP in maintenance management is generic. There are no concrete examples showing how the bibliometric analysis identified trends or gaps applicable to the steel industry—i.e., there is no link to a practical case.
Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Recent studies, such as those by Depczyński et al. (2023), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024) and Sayed et al. (2024), have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse. 

3.5. The document limits itself to a descriptive analysis, simply explaining the generated figures and tables and how they relate to the cited laws. There is no in-depth discussion of the findings or how the paper advances knowledge in the field. Section 5 merely summarizes the descriptive results from section 4.
Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. We revise all the manuscript to ensures a more realistic representation of the findings and their implications, and we provide a foundation for future studies to build upon, offering a clear direction for addressing these constraints in further research.

3.6. I believe the paper lacks the correct techniques and could greatly expand its insight into the research field. However, this would require not only substantial rewriting but also significant intellectual effort to make a meaningful contribution that enhances our understanding of the target area. This is important not only to justify publication but also to give the authors the opportunity to maximize the impact of their work—to shape the future of the field rather than merely meet minimum requirements for publication.
Author's Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions. We have made substantial improvements to the manuscript, particularly in the introduction, literature review, and research methodology. These revisions aim to enhance the robustness of our study and contribute meaningfully to the field of research. As a result, the manuscript now offers a comprehensive and methodologically sound presentation.

6. Conclusions and Contributions
The conclusions highlight “challenges and opportunities for future research” but fail to link these insights to specific results from the bibliometric analysis. Additionally, the article does not demonstrate how applying bibliometric laws brings new perspectives to AHP use in the steel industry beyond what is already known in the literature.
Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. The conclusion has been revised and includes specific recommendations for future research directions. Bibliometric laws analyze research trends, collaborations, and key concepts, providing significant new insights for AHP's application in the steel industry. The Bibliometric analysis, which involves examining keyword co-occurrence and trend analysis, can identify emerging areas where the AHP is increasingly applied within the steel industry. For instance, if terms like "sustainable supply chain," "decarbonization," or "Industry 4.0 adoption" are experiencing significant growth in AHP-related publications, this indicates new opportunities for their usage. Such insights can help guide researchers and practitioners in addressing critical and contemporary challenges facing the steel sector. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the application of AHP in maintenance management within the steel industry using bibliometric methods. While the topic is novel and the methodology is sound, it suffers from insufficient theoretical depth, superficial data interpretation, and weak practical value. Major revision is required. Key issues are detailed below.

 

Why does author productivity in steel align with Lotka’s Law?

Why do Bradford’s core journals (e.g., Journal of Cleaner Production) focus on sustainability over maintenance?

 

Cite Saaty’s original work on AHP’s strengths in multi-criteria decisions.

 

 

Distinguish between "bibliometric analysis" and "AHP application," or add case studies on AHP implementation.

 

Extract maintenance strategies from these 60 papers (e.g., predictive/preventive ratios).

Compare AHP applications in steel vs. chemical/power industries.

 

Link national trends to policies (e.g., China’s "Made in China 2025").

Explain engineering’s dominance via maintenance’s technical nature.

 

Calculate clustering modularity (Q > 0.3 validates structure).

Use timeline views to show thematic shifts (2015–2024).

 

 

Propose an "AHP-maintenance workflow" (e.g., weight allocation → strategy selection).

Cite industry cases where AHP reduced downtime costs (e.g., ref. [32]).

 

 

Analyze why "predictive maintenance" (Figure 14) is underused in steel.

Propose AHP-driven equipment monitoring solutions.

 

Prioritize 3 directions (e.g., "AHP with digital twins," "dynamic cost-weighting").

 

Verify and correct all timestamps/sources.

 

Define "statistical tools = three laws + software" in Section 2.1.

 

Add 2023-2024 literature.

Author Response

1. Why does author productivity in steel align with Lotka’s Law?

Author's reply:  This research enhances to conduct a bibliometric analysis employing statistical tools to measure researchers' scientific contributions, concerning the AHP method applications in maintenance management within the steel industry. Lotka's, Zipf's, and Bradford's Laws are three statistical rules that provide insights into publication patterns. According to Gontijo et al.(2025), the significance of bibliometric laws (including Lotka's) is crucial for understanding patterns in the production of scientific knowledge. When applied in bibliometric methodology, these laws offer valuable in-sights into academic output, allowing for a deeper analysis of the dynamics of scientific research.

 

2. Why do Bradford’s core journals (e.g., Journal of Cleaner Production) focus on sustainability over maintenance?

Author's reply:  Bradford's core journals emphasize sustainability rather than maintenance since sustainability offers a broader and more holistic approach to long-term viability and positive impact, whereas maintenance mainly focuses on keeping the current state os assets. However, this research enhances to conduct a bibliometric analysis employing statistical tools to measure researchers' scientific contributions, concerning the AHP method applications in maintenance management within the steel industry. As mentionet before, when the three laws (including Bradford's law) are applied in bibliometric methodology, they offer valuable in-sights into academic output, allowing for a deeper analysis of the dynamics of scientific research.

 

3. Cite Saaty’s original work on AHP’s strengths in multi-criteria decisions.

Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. Saaty’s works on AHP’s strengths have been cited.

 

4. Distinguish between "bibliometric analysis" and "AHP application," or add case studies on AHP implementation.

Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Recent studies, such as those by Depczyński et al. (2023), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024) and Sayed et al. (2024), have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse.

 

5. Extract maintenance strategies from these 60 papers (e.g., predictive/preventive ratios).

Author's reply: We appreciate the valuable feedback. Recent studies, such as those by Elraaid et al. (2024), Ge et al. (2017), Sarda et al. (2021), Noura et al. (2024), Khan et al., (2020), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024), Sayed et al. (2024) and Tabatabaee et al. (2019) have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse.

 

6. Compare AHP applications in steel vs. chemical/power industries.

Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Substantial improvements have been made to the literature review, including AHP applications in steel vs. chemical/power. These revisions ensure a comprehensive and solid presentation.

 

7. Link national trends to policies (e.g., China’s "Made in China 2025").

Author's reply: Table 5 have the leading sources, where each source are organized by country.  In the Figure 5 we have the country distribution, Figure 6 displays the co-authorship of countries, and finally Figure 7 demonstarte the citations of countries, bur unfortunately, no national trends or policies were identified.

 

8. Explain engineering’s dominance via maintenance’s technical nature.

Author's reply: We appreciate the valuable feedback. Recent studies, such as those by Elraaid et al. (2024), Ge et al. (2017), Sarda et al. (2021), Noura et al. (2024), Khan et al., (2020), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024), Sayed et al. (2024) and Tabatabaee et al. (2019) have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with engineering’s dominance via maintenance’s technical nature.

 

9. Calculate clustering modularity (Q > 0.3 validates structure).

Author's reply: The VOSviewer provides a powerful visual representation of clustering, but it doesn't directly display the modularity Q value. While VOSviewer's clustering algorithm optimizes the modulariti Q, it's an internal calculation used to create the visual clusters.

 

10. Use timeline views to show thematic shifts (2015–2024).

Author's reply: We agree with this observation. To address this, Figure 15 demonstrate the timeline views to show thematic shifts (2015–2024) in VOSviewer overlay map.

 

11. Propose an "AHP-maintenance workflow" (e.g., weight allocation → strategy selection).

Author's reply: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have added more details to the theoretical background, including some citations concerning this issue. Furthermore, we also include this insight for future studies.

 

12. Cite industry cases where AHP reduced downtime costs (e.g., ref. [32]).

Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Recent case studies, such as those by Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024) and Sayed et al. (2024), have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse.

 

13. Analyze why "predictive maintenance" (Figure 14) is underused in steel.

Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. The conclusions have been revised to include a balanced discussion of the study’s limitations, such as the limited number of experts and the lack of external validation.

 

14. Propose AHP-driven equipment monitoring solutions.

Author's reply: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have added more details to the theoretical background, including some citations concerning this issue. Furthermore, we also include this insight for future studies.

 

15. Prioritize 3 directions (e.g., "AHP with digital twins," "dynamic cost-weighting").

Author's reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added more details to the theoretical background as Mohapatra et al. (2024), where they rank the performance indicators in the context of IoT-enabled DG monitoring, and Sayed et al. (2024), where they integrate AHP with machine learning (ML).

 

16. Verify and correct all timestamps/sources.

Author's reply: We appreciate your observation. All timestamps/sources have been verified for accuracy and formatted according to the journal's citation guidelines.

 

17. Define "statistical tools = three laws + software" in Section 2.1.

Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Section 2 has been reorganized to address this recommendation.

 

18. Add 2023-2024 literature.

Author's reply: We appreciate your observation. Recent studies, such as those by Noura et al. (2024),  Kabashkin et al. (2025),  and Sayed et al. (2024), have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The abstract requires revision. The main findings of the paper should be presented in this section.

- The significance of the research should be emphasized in the Introduction section. It is advisable to discuss the importance of maintenance management in the steel industry.

-        The bibliometric laws, including Bradford's Law, Lotka's Law, and Zipf's Law, need to be referenced. Additionally, the advantages and limitations of these methods should be discussed.

 

-        It is recommended to briefly discuss the maintenance policies in the steel industry. Additionally, it is important to explain why the AHP method was studied in this research. The primary advantages of this method should also be outlined.

- The software tools VOSViewer and Bibliometrix require proper referencing.

- It is important to clarify which method was used for clustering the data presented in Figure 14. Additionally, the percentages for each cluster should also be reported.

Author Response

1. The abstract requires revision. The main findings of the paper should be presented in this section.

Author's reply: We agree with this observation. The abstract has been revised and includes the main findings of this research.

 

2. The significance of the research should be emphasized in the Introduction section. It is advisable to discuss the importance of maintenance management in the steel industry.

Author's reply: We appreciate this valuable feedback. We have restructured the introduction to improve readability by breaking down lengthy sentences into concise, digestible parts while maintaining the original content's depth.

 

3. The bibliometric laws, including Bradford's Law, Lotka's Law, and Zipf's Law, need to be referenced. Additionally, the advantages and limitations of these methods should be discussed.

Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Section 2 has been reorganized to address this recommendation, and the advantages and limitations of these methods have been included. Also they were referenced as:

Brookes, B. C. (1969). Bradford's law and the bibliography of science. Nature, 224(6), (953-956). https://doi.org/10.1038/227631a0.

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-324.

Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley.

 

4. It is recommended to briefly discuss the maintenance policies in the steel industry. Additionally, it is important to explain why the AHP method was studied in this research. The primary advantages of this method should also be outlined.

Author's reply: We appreciate the valuable feedback. Recent studies, such as those by Elraaid et al. (2024), Ge et al. (2017), Sarda et al. (2021), Noura et al. (2024), Khan et al., (2020), Kabashkin et al. (2025), Mohapatra et al. (2024), Sayed et al. (2024) and Tabatabaee et al. (2019) have been incorporated to enhance the manuscript's relevance and align it with contemporary academic discourse. The main advantages of the AHP method have also been described.

 

5. The software tools VOSViewer and Bibliometrix require proper referencing.

Author's reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Section 2 has been reorganized to address this recommendation. They were referenced as:

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric map-ping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

 

6. It is important to clarify which method was used for clustering the data presented in Figure 14. Additionally, the percentages for each cluster should also be reported.

Author's reply: We appreciate your observation. We have clarified the clustering method used for the data in Figure 14 and included the percentages for each cluster.